Voting is about choosing good candidates well before it gets pared down to 2 options.
In the US, yes. I was making a general statement. A voting system can be set up in multiple ways, but if it forces people to play lesser of the two evils then it is broken and needs to be changed.
Voting is about choosing good candidates (or parties, or policies). If your system doesn't let you vote, then you should consider changing your system.
If a violent criminal tried to break into my house, I would definitely not try to fight them alone. I do not have a death wish.
Of course Russia should not occupy Ukraine (and neither should Ukraine act as an occupying army towards its own Russian minority). But questions of what is right and what is wrong will not be decided on the battlefield. The only thing that will be proven on the battlefield is which side has a bigger army, and we already know the answer to that question.
Under the current circumstances, the only moral position is to support peace. Once a peace - or at least a ceasefire - is achieved, Russia, Ukraine and the separatist regions may be able to negotiate a settlement and those who started the war might even be exposed and punished. But if the fighting continues, thousands of random people will die needlessly.
The Redmi brand is aimed at a mainstream audience, and there are probably enough people who will try to unlock bootloader without thinking through that Xiaomi wants to put some deterrance. Although I feel the Poco brand should allow easier unlockong, since it is aimed more at power users.
This is a program dedicated to influencers, not reviewers.
Corrected. Thanks!
There are YouTube channels/instagrammers that exclusively review sponsored products.
I don't use instagram, and stick to the more reliable youtube channels. Didn't know this was a thing.
If Google believes that the outlet is legit, they give the review device for free without the sponsorship contract. When they talk good about the device they need to flag the post with #giftfromgoogle and #teampixel
This feels like one of those stories where one person misleads another without technically lying.
The first problem is that Google is giving an incentive to influencers - who are supposed to be (more or less) impartia - to review their phone favourably compared to alternatives.
The second problem is that, despite being one of the biggest companies in the world, they did this in the most obvious way possible. Now who will trust any positive review of their phone? Anyone with common sense, let alone the lawyers whom I suppose cleared this - should have told them not to do something so dumb.
Edit: corrected reviewers to influencers, for the reasons explained below.
Closest comparison I could think of. What I understood is that these guys get a government job, and in return are expected to stop their hooliganism. But OP says below that it was originally a volunteer system that got corrupted over time.
Gold having 1 more is weird because you would expect no silver if two have gold and therefore a difference of 2.
Vinesh Phogat was disqualified for being overweight during the weigh-in of the 50kg women's wrestling final. Her opponent got gold, and both losing semifinalists got bronze.
It became a big controversy in India because she had been <50kg for every match until then, and she had previously protested against the wrestling federation - which chose her dietician and other staff - for covering up sexual assault cases.
Any narrative will be biased, both in what it says and what it leaves out. But historians have to at least try to be impartial. I'm not a professional historian, so I can have whatever opinion I want.
Most of the things you said are true. What is also true is that he and his descendents established a unified, peaceful empire from Korea to Hungary, from southern Russia to Iran. He unified China, then divided by civil war, and brought in economists and doctors from the Islamic World. He promoted Buddhism, Daoism and Islam, and his successors included Confucians and Christians. He guaranteed safe travel and trade across his empire, as well as religious tolerance and a common set of laws.
He killed thousands (the death tolls are inflated by both his enemies and his own followers - as a warning to those who they were going to attack next), but his actions benefitted millions. How can you form any moral judgement about such a figure? All you can do is try to find out the truth, report it, and let people reach their own conclusions.
I'm pretty sure the sun isn't massive enough to go supernova.